DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Maiers v. Maiers, 775 N.W.2d 666.

71 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
5 170, 175 (Minn. App. 2020); Melius v. Melius
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Brenda Lee Christiansen v. Timothy Nels Christiansen, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Brenda Lee Christiansen v. Timothy Nels Christiansen, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“In essence, the district court balances the recipient’s needs against the obligor’s ability to pay.”
In re the Marriage of: William T. Bienemann, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: John Alex Walker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
All eight statutory factors are relevant and “no single factor is dispositive.”
In re the Marriage of: Rupam Sinha, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Deborah Lynn Nichols, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“I n essence, the district court balances the recipient’s needs against the obligor’s ability to pay.”
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Kimberly JoAnn Wauzynski, n/k/a/ Kimberly JoAnn Denne, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Ronald Lee Henrichs, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Jeffrey Herman Goldenberg, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Cynthia A. Linnerooth, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But “[n]o single factor is dispositive.” d 666, 668 (Minn. App. 2009).
In re the Marriage of: Aaron Di Luong, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: David Michael Kedrowski, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Lauri Sue Browning, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
WL 4263161, at *7 ( 9 (Minn. App. 2009) ()).
In re the Marriage of: Susan Lee Wood, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“No single factor is dispositive.”
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Anne Sanders, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(citing Gessner v. Gessner , Minn. R. Civ.
Madden v. Madden 923 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Madden v. Madden 923 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Maiers v. Maiers , , 668-69 (Minn. App. 2009).
In re the Marriage of: Laurie S. Morris Hiniker a/k/a Laurie Suzette Morris, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Gregory Joseph Parnell, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
3 (2018).1 When addressing the amount and duration of a maintenance award, “[i]n essence, the district court balances the recipient’s needs against the obligor’s ability to pay.”
Marjorie A. Gomes, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: James Patrick Pnewski, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“No single factor is dispositive.”
In re the Matter of: Colleen Jea’ne Olson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 666, 668 (Minn. App. 2009).
A17-1036 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Michele Lura Honderich-Flannery, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Kristin Gorney, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Tracy Wong Belcher, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“No single factor is dispositive.”
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Dennis Lee Polla, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“No single factor is dispositive.”
In re the Marriage of: Lori Elaine Coleal, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“In essence, the district court balances the recipient’s needs against the obligor’s ability to pay.”
In re the Marriage of: David Joseph Williams, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Elena Vladimirovna Tokarev v. Vladimir Efimovich Tokarev Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Elena Vladimirovna Tokarev v. Vladimir Efimovich Tokarev Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We apply “a clearly erroneous standard of review to a district court’s findings of fact concerning spousal maintenance.”
In re the Marriage of: Sonya Sebring Stylos v. Lee Stylos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Christopher Hutchenson Owen v. Angela Dawn Owen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Sonya Sebring Stylos v. Lee Stylos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Christopher Hutchenson Owen v. Angela Dawn Owen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“In essence, the district court balances the recipient’s needs against the obligor’s ability to pay.”
In re the Marriage of: Kari Wynn Wahlstrom v. Eric David Wahlstrom Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Kari Wynn Wahlstrom v. Eric David Wahlstrom Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Matthew John Miller v. Jody Lynn Bichrt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Matthew John Miller v. Jody Lynn Bichrt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“We apply a clearly erroneous standard of review to a district court’s findings of fact concerning spousal maintenance.”
In re the Marriage of: Marianne Ronate Reis v. Thomas Michael Hallberg Minn. Ct. App. 2016